At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Of course, as no change can occur without time for it to happen (nothing can change in 0 amount of time), but as most philosophers of time and physicists believe... Change is an illusion.

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Of course, as no change can occur without time for it to happen (nothing can change in 0 amount of time), but as most philosophers of time and physicists believe... Change is an illusion.

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Of course, as no change can occur without time for it to happen (nothing can change in 0 amount of time), but as most philosophers of time and physicists believe... Change is an illusion.

I disagree.

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

B-theory.

I tend towards thinking that time is a 4-d space block. Partly because of Einstein's theories of relativity which work so well, and make sense with B theory, as opposed to A theory.

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

B-theory.

I tend towards thinking that time is a 4-d space block.

4d space block....beam me up ScottyPartly because of Einstein's theories of relativity which work so well, and make sense with B theory, as opposed to A theory.

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

B-theory.

I tend towards thinking that time is a 4-d space block.

4d space block....beam me up ScottyPartly because of Einstein's theories of relativity which work so well, and make sense with B theory, as opposed to A theory.

Hahaha ;P

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

B-theory.

I tend towards thinking that time is a 4-d space block. Partly because of Einstein's theories of relativity which work so well, and make sense with B theory, as opposed to A theory.

Of course the Presentist could just cite the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of Special Relativity. Do you have reasons to reject this view?

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

B-theory.

I tend towards thinking that time is a 4-d space block. Partly because of Einstein's theories of relativity which work so well, and make sense with B theory, as opposed to A theory.

Of course the Presentist could just cite the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of Special Relativity. Do you have reasons to reject this view?

Nope, I don't know enough about it, but I suspect it's ad hoc. Links for further reading?

"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

B-theory.

I tend towards thinking that time is a 4-d space block. Partly because of Einstein's theories of relativity which work so well, and make sense with B theory, as opposed to A theory.

Of course the Presentist could just cite the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of Special Relativity. Do you have reasons to reject this view?

Nope, I don't know enough about it, but I suspect it's ad hoc. Links for further reading?

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

B-theory.

I tend towards thinking that time is a 4-d space block. Partly because of Einstein's theories of relativity which work so well, and make sense with B theory, as opposed to A theory.

Of course the Presentist could just cite the Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of Special Relativity. Do you have reasons to reject this view?

Nope, I don't know enough about it, but I suspect it's ad hoc. Links for further reading?

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

An Egyptian notices a shadow cast by an obelisks that essentially moves in a half of circle during the day and almost repeats this movement everyday. A circle was drawn to assume the movement at night. Increments were put on the circle. Numbers assigned. All of this merely was a result of the Earth rotating a d the sun creating a shadow....And abracadabra, time the word and language of it was introduced into humanity and here we are thinking it is something that causes anything? Preston it's a magical 4th dimension that exists because we have clocks to prove it. Atoms vibrate so that's really what the Egyptian was getting at when he coined time the concept.. There's a serious disconnection in the logic within these ideas that resembles a crevice bigger than the grand canyon as far as where time came from and where it now is. I don't know about you but this seems like people are worshipping the original "shadow". Aka Plato's cave allegory was wise for all time, lol

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Name one thing that time causes it to change.Hint, aging noEarth rotating , noClocks moving, noThere isn't one thing that changes "because", "so therefore", blah blah blah, time exists.Not one. So I'm assuming you're familiar with confusing cause and effect fallacy. If not, re-read your comment, you're now familiar with an example.

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Name one thing that time causes it to change.Hint, aging noEarth rotating , noClocks moving, noThere isn't one thing that changes "because", "so therefore", blah blah blah, time exists.Not one. So I'm assuming you're familiar with confusing cause and effect fallacy. If not, re-read your comment, you're now familiar with an example.

Lol, my comment had nothing to with cause and effect, but instead had to with essential attributes. I never said time caused anything to change, but rather time consist of change by its nature.

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Name one thing that time causes it to change.Hint, aging noEarth rotating , noClocks moving, noThere isn't one thing that changes "because", "so therefore", blah blah blah, time exists.Not one. So I'm assuming you're familiar with confusing cause and effect fallacy. If not, re-read your comment, you're now familiar with an example.

Nothing can change with O time to change. With no time, there is no change.

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Name one thing that time causes it to change.Hint, aging noEarth rotating , noClocks moving, noThere isn't one thing that changes "because", "so therefore", blah blah blah, time exists.Not one. So I'm assuming you're familiar with confusing cause and effect fallacy. If not, re-read your comment, you're now familiar with an example.

Lol, my comment had nothing to with cause and effect, but instead had to with essential attributes. I never said time caused anything to change, but rather time consist of change by its nature.

So now we've entered the realm off fallacy of ambiguity....."time consists of change by its nature" is simply a bare assertion that is ridiculous quite frankly, which I'm betting when analyzed, will result in nothing but circular reasoning. Time has a nature? All you're doing is saying change is time because time gives change time to change......Time is nothing more than a simplistic way to reduce an old way of communicating to easier and more concise phrases. It's a language that simply conveys where the Earth is in its rotation compared to the sun and it's related to where a person is on the Earth. It doesn't have a nature.Ok meet you at the saloon at 12pm.....orWhen the shadow of the stick you put in the ground faces due north. Of course you have to know where north is, meet me at the saloon.Einstein's idea of time was simply a joke. Doesn't mean nothing in relativity was true, just means his idea about observation was a fantasy. Genius does sometimes see things where's there are no things to be seen.

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Name one thing that time causes it to change.Hint, aging noEarth rotating , noClocks moving, noThere isn't one thing that changes "because", "so therefore", blah blah blah, time exists.Not one. So I'm assuming you're familiar with confusing cause and effect fallacy. If not, re-read your comment, you're now familiar with an example.

Nothing can change with O time to change. With no time, there is no change.

They say time tells all, but time tells nothing but a lie. They say time flies, but time never moves an inch. Time is all around you, but time never helps you to understand anything. Time is woven into the fabric of space. Space is the construct to the game of life. Imagine yourself as a character inside a video game called Life. Consider the time it takes a person to complete a game to its finish, with one day it two days to two or more weeks, the time to you is always irrelevant to the tine to the character inside the game. If the character inside the game had a consciousness, if it had a soul, if it could feel it would never be able to feel all the pausing moments you've taken to complete the game. The character would only know time as one continuous moment. Now consider that you are this character being played by something outside of this universe, only reverse the given dynamics to positions to time, and you will still be unable to understand, just as it is impossible for me to describe. It is something that must be experienced to believe, because you will never believe me when I say all your years lived here are less than a second of tine in the real.

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Name one thing that time causes it to change.Hint, aging noEarth rotating , noClocks moving, noThere isn't one thing that changes "because", "so therefore", blah blah blah, time exists.Not one. So I'm assuming you're familiar with confusing cause and effect fallacy. If not, re-read your comment, you're now familiar with an example.

Nothing can change with O time to change. With no time, there is no change.

Circular reasoning. Which isn't rational you in know.

It wasn't circular reasoning, it was two ways to state the same truth. What can happen with 0 time I ask you? Nothing, it would be impossible, because the instant something started to change you could time the change. Therefore, it is irrational to think change can occur without time. This is why all timeless models of the universe entail a static universe because everyone knows this.

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Name one thing that time causes it to change.Hint, aging noEarth rotating , noClocks moving, noThere isn't one thing that changes "because", "so therefore", blah blah blah, time exists.Not one. So I'm assuming you're familiar with confusing cause and effect fallacy. If not, re-read your comment, you're now familiar with an example.

Lol, my comment had nothing to with cause and effect, but instead had to with essential attributes. I never said time caused anything to change, but rather time consist of change by its nature.

So now we've entered the realm off fallacy of ambiguity....."time consists of change by its nature" is simply a bare assertion that is ridiculous quite frankly, which I'm betting when analyzed, will result in nothing but circular reasoning. Time has a nature? All you're doing is saying change is time because time gives change time to change......Time is nothing more than a simplistic way to reduce an old way of communicating to easier and more concise phrases. It's a language that simply conveys where the Earth is in its rotation compared to the sun and it's related to where a person is on the Earth. It doesn't have a nature.Ok meet you at the saloon at 12pm.....orWhen the shadow of the stick you put in the ground faces due north. Of course you have to know where north is, meet me at the saloon.Einstein's idea of time was simply a joke. Doesn't mean nothing in relativity was true, just means his idea about observation was a fantasy. Genius does sometimes see things where's there are no things to be seen.

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Name one thing that time causes it to change.Hint, aging noEarth rotating , noClocks moving, noThere isn't one thing that changes "because", "so therefore", blah blah blah, time exists.Not one. So I'm assuming you're familiar with confusing cause and effect fallacy. If not, re-read your comment, you're now familiar with an example.

Nothing can change with O time to change. With no time, there is no change.

Circular reasoning. Which isn't rational you in know.

It wasn't circular reasoning, it was two ways to state the same truth. What can happen with 0 time I ask you? Nothing,

Fallacy of a loaded question. And if your reasoning that it takes time for something to happen then claim that "nothing can happen in zero time" that's circular reasoning 101.

it would be impossible, because the instant something started to change you could time the change. Therefore, it is irrational to think change can occur without time.

Confusing cause and effect fallacy

This is why all timeless models of the universe entail a static universe because everyone knows this.

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Name one thing that time causes it to change.Hint, aging noEarth rotating , noClocks moving, noThere isn't one thing that changes "because", "so therefore", blah blah blah, time exists.Not one. So I'm assuming you're familiar with confusing cause and effect fallacy. If not, re-read your comment, you're now familiar with an example.

Lol, my comment had nothing to with cause and effect, but instead had to with essential attributes. I never said time caused anything to change, but rather time consist of change by its nature.

So now we've entered the realm off fallacy of ambiguity....."time consists of change by its nature" is simply a bare assertion that is ridiculous quite frankly, which I'm betting when analyzed, will result in nothing but circular reasoning. Time has a nature? All you're doing is saying change is time because time gives change time to change......Time is nothing more than a simplistic way to reduce an old way of communicating to easier and more concise phrases. It's a language that simply conveys where the Earth is in its rotation compared to the sun and it's related to where a person is on the Earth. It doesn't have a nature.Ok meet you at the saloon at 12pm.....orWhen the shadow of the stick you put in the ground faces due north. Of course you have to know where north is, meet me at the saloon.Einstein's idea of time was simply a joke. Doesn't mean nothing in relativity was true, just means his idea about observation was a fantasy. Genius does sometimes see things where's there are no things to be seen.

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Name one thing that time causes it to change.Hint, aging noEarth rotating , noClocks moving, noThere isn't one thing that changes "because", "so therefore", blah blah blah, time exists.Not one. So I'm assuming you're familiar with confusing cause and effect fallacy. If not, re-read your comment, you're now familiar with an example.

Lol, my comment had nothing to with cause and effect, but instead had to with essential attributes. I never said time caused anything to change, but rather time consist of change by its nature.

So now we've entered the realm off fallacy of ambiguity....."time consists of change by its nature" is simply a bare assertion that is ridiculous quite frankly, which I'm betting when analyzed, will result in nothing but circular reasoning. Time has a nature? All you're doing is saying change is time because time gives change time to change......Time is nothing more than a simplistic way to reduce an old way of communicating to easier and more concise phrases. It's a language that simply conveys where the Earth is in its rotation compared to the sun and it's related to where a person is on the Earth. It doesn't have a nature.Ok meet you at the saloon at 12pm.....orWhen the shadow of the stick you put in the ground faces due north. Of course you have to know where north is, meet me at the saloon.Einstein's idea of time was simply a joke. Doesn't mean nothing in relativity was true, just means his idea about observation was a fantasy. Genius does sometimes see things where's there are no things to be seen.

Is time neccessary for change? I'd say no, based on the following sort of reasoning: Consider a cone - its diameter changes depending on distance from the tip. Time doesn't enter into it - the change is strictly a matter of space v. space.

I can imagine an objection along the lines that such change isn't really change, but I think what such an objecton is reallly saying is that such change is not change 'with respect to time'. Well, yes. But if you insist 'change' means 'change with respect to time' then its obvious that time is necessary - you've put time into the definition of change so of course 'change' (so defined) depends on the existence of time.

I'd say we don't need time for change, but we may need time to explain why we perceive change in the way we do. If a cone dweller perceives the diameter of his world is steadily increasing then there are two possibilities

1) there is a real moving time dimension which inexorably drags the inhabitant of cone world away from the tip.

2) Time does not exist but the minds of cone dwellers evolved to make sense of their world in terms of a fictitious time dimension.

In other terms, in 1) there is actual movement along a real time dimension - in 2) the minds of cone-dwellers are constrained to 'move' along the cone's axis as if there was a real time dimension.

The big question for 2) is "What is the origin of the constraints?" If they are purely psychological, why does it apply equally to all cone-dwellers? Why is it impossible by act of will to perceive (note: not imagine! One can imagine anything.) the world changing so as to become smaller? If cone-world has its own version of special relativity, why does time (if it only perceived rather than real) run so counter to intution in cetain circumstances, flouting any psychological motivation? Of course the problem of the origins and nature of such constrants on perception does nor exist for 1).

Of course we don't live in a cone world where the only facts are diameter and distance from the tip, but I think the above goes someway to suggesting that it very likely that time is real, not a purely mental construct.

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Name one thing that time causes it to change.Hint, aging noEarth rotating , noClocks moving, noThere isn't one thing that changes "because", "so therefore", blah blah blah, time exists.Not one. So I'm assuming you're familiar with confusing cause and effect fallacy. If not, re-read your comment, you're now familiar with an example.

Nothing can change with O time to change. With no time, there is no change.

Circular reasoning. Which isn't rational you in know.

It wasn't circular reasoning, it was two ways to state the same truth. What can happen with 0 time I ask you? Nothing,

Fallacy of a loaded question. And if your reasoning that it takes time for something to happen then claim that "nothing can happen in zero time" that's circular reasoning 101.

Straw-man fallacy. That wasn't my reason, it was two different ways of stating my position.

it would be impossible, because the instant something started to change you could time the change. Therefore, it is irrational to think change can occur without time.

Confusing cause and effect fallacy

Bare-assertion fallacy.

This is why all timeless models of the universe entail a static universe because everyone knows this.

If I said I was so hungry I could eat a horse would that mean I would actually eat a horse? I didn't mean "everyone" literally. And it's funny you call be logically inept when you have never even won a debate on this site, and you actually engaged in logical fallacies while misrepresenting me. Ironic..

At 6/29/2016 2:51:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:What view do you take on time? Is it real? If so, is temporal becoming an illusion? Or, does our intuition about the passage of time lead us to true facts? Discuss.

If change exists, doesn't time have to be real?

Name one thing that time causes it to change.Hint, aging noEarth rotating , noClocks moving, noThere isn't one thing that changes "because", "so therefore", blah blah blah, time exists.Not one. So I'm assuming you're familiar with confusing cause and effect fallacy. If not, re-read your comment, you're now familiar with an example.

Nothing can change with O time to change. With no time, there is no change.

Circular reasoning. Which isn't rational you in know.

It wasn't circular reasoning, it was two ways to state the same truth. What can happen with 0 time I ask you? Nothing,

Fallacy of a loaded question. And if your reasoning that it takes time for something to happen then claim that "nothing can happen in zero time" that's circular reasoning 101.

Straw-man fallacy. That wasn't my reason, it was two different ways of stating my position.

Prove it. If you think you're stating a fact.....mere utterances are useless. All you do is pout and stomp your foot insisting you "speak the truth". You have yet to offer reasoned rejoinder.

it would be impossible, because the instant something started to change you could time the change. Therefore, it is irrational to think change can occur without time.

Confusing cause and effect fallacy

Bare-assertion fallacy.

Umm yeah, no such thing. You claim,(using a negative) change cannot occur without time..prove it.

This is why all timeless models of the universe entail a static universe because everyone knows this.

If I said I was so hungry I could eat a horse would that mean I would actually eat a horse? I didn't mean "everyone" literally. And it's funny you call be logically inept when you have never even won a debate on this site, and you actually engaged in logical fallacies while misrepresenting me. Ironic..

People eat horse meat, that's where it came from. Misrepresent you? lmfao. You have yet to even attempt to support any of your positions. You simply keep avoiding them and making issue of things that are irrelevant. "Everyone knows this" "I(you) was merely speaking the truth". You gonna actually prove anything? Put up or shut up.

I draw attention to my previous post. In common language the 'change' generally refers to 'change with respect to time', but there isn't any hard and fast rule about what 'change' means if time is absent.

The diameter of a cone does not change with respect to time but it does change with respect to distance from the tip. So if the diameter of a cone doesn't change wrt time, but it does change wrt tip distance, what does 'change' even mean?